- From: Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 12:02:13 +0000
- To: <paul.downey@bt.com>
- Cc: <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
> Jim > >> Certainly the utility company does not stick an action on the envelope >> like"urn:pay:up:or:supply:will:be:cut" which is the function of >> was:action. > > my electricity bill is sent to "accounts department", "Southern Gas*, > London" > "accounts department" being the action in this case. > >> When I received a bill from a utility company, it doesn't "invoke" the >> "GiveMeMoney" operation on me. I just get a document which I parse and >> understand, and may take some action on. > > endpoints are about /routing/ and action is about /dispatching/ > i don't see how the ws-addressing spec could specify that dispatch > contents > must be, say a noun rather than a verb. > > So whilst i'm happy for *your* implementations to process the service > specific > message contents to work out the action to be taken, removing action > will preclude > other styles of service from using ws-addressing, in particular > endpoints using a > generic security or routing proxy (the post room in the gas board > example). > Paul, by making action mandatory you are imposing your own model on everyone in just the same way as removing it. So why not just make it optional? Best of both worlds? Mark.
Received on Friday, 5 November 2004 12:03:21 UTC